Sorry, Dag, no sleep + lots of caffine = bad time to post. I was up all night working on a very rough programming project, so my mind's kinda in tatters. But there was kinda a point to using that tone in my post. The same tone I used in the post is how that poster sounds to those of us not familiar with its tradition in christianity. It's the "how the hell do you not know?" tone. It sounds arrogant and condecending. Now that I know the tradition behind it, I'm not as offended.
Perhaps the posters could take that into account next time they make one. You know... show the bible quote, have a little fine print blurb about the history of the phrasing and its significance around Easter time. Something like that.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I never said I was offended. I said I was irritated enough, over a period of four years, to produce a parody.
True. Alcon, on the other hand, would apparently be "extremely" offended. (Edit: Not now that he knows where it comes from.)
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:To such a person, the implication of "Do you not know? Have you not heard?" is that the only ways you might not already believe in their religion are (1) you just haven't heard about it yet, or (2) you're some sort of heathen. The suggestion, then, is that both of these regrettable situations can be rectified with a quick visit to their meeting.
Only if you're reading a LOT into the questions.
I disagree completely. I think this is the natural implication to a native English speaker who is unfamiliar with the Bible.
Why, though? You're making this huge leap in intent, and I still haven't seen a cogent explanation as to why this is the natural implication of those questions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:I am the Lord thy God, do not worship any other Gods but me.
Well, I'm agnostic there could be one I just simply don't know if their is and nor could I join a religion since i would be unable to take it as seriously as other people or possess the faith to be a member of it.
But If friends were perfoming in a Church I would go to provide support, not like I'll burst into flames for being a pinko commie bastard.
IP: Logged |
Every time someone tries to explain this to me, they add words ("how the hell") which make the offensiveness clear. My question is why does adding those words make sense?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because that's just how it sounds to someone not familiar with the tradition. How else can we explain it? That's the tone I read it with when I see that. That's the implication that seems to be there.
Once aquainted with the tradition that tone/implication vanishes. But before that... *shrug* that's how it reads in my head.
Try looking at Twinks prank. What tone do you add to that statement? (though perhaps it will be hard for you to see it, already well aquainted with the tradition...)
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, to me, as someone who is not overly familiar with the bible, it implies that the most likely reason that the reader would not believe in God is that they are either ignorant ("do you not know?") or have somehow managed to get all the way to engineering school without having been let in on the fact that God exists ("have you not heard?").
Edit:
There's no third option of "have you examined the evidence/lack thereof and reached the conclusion most logical to you?". It just assumes that the only two possiblities are that you've just never heard of God, or are somehow still confused even though you've heard of God.
Further, the sign attempts to remedy the situation for you. "You don't believe in God? Well, either you haven't heard or you are simply mistaken. In either case, I'll solve that for you by telling you that God is, in fact, our everlasting lord. Glad we've cleared that up for you. You're very welcome."
Knowing the passage is from the bible, now, I can see that the sign was meant for current believers, and is not addressed to non-believers. But not knowing the bible verse, it appears directed at non-believers, and in an extremely condescending way.
quote:Try looking at Twinks prank. What tone do you add to that statement?
Parodying atheist. The same tone I associate with the dawrin fish w/ legs on the back of a car. *shrug*
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think the offensive tone may come from the use of the negative (to those unfamiliar with the verse). "Don't you know" rather than "do you know" does, at least to me, imply some fault in the listener or at least some surprise that the listener didn't know.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Why, though? You're making this huge leap in intent, and I still haven't seen a cogent explanation as to why this is the natural implication of those questions.
I'm not making a leap in intent. I assume that the people who created the poster didn't do so to be intentionally condescending.
The other implications that have been proposed are dependent on outside knowledge (of the Bible, Christian tradition, etc.). If one does not have that outside knowledge, I'll try to break down how I think it parses:
"Do you not know? Have you not heard? X is true!"
From this, if you do not know that X is true, the most likely cause is that you haven't heard that X is true. If you hear X, then, you must be very likely to immediately see that it is self-evidently true.
If you've heard X and haven't accepted it as true, it conveys incredulity, since all you should need to do in order to accept the truth of X is to hear it.
Added:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Try looking at Twinks prank. What tone do you add to that statement?
Parodying atheist. The same tone I associate with the dawrin fish w/ legs on the back of a car. *shrug*
Including the text at the bottom? Also, could you describe this tone a little more fully? Is there negativity associated with it?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel similarly to twinky on this one. It gives me the same kind of feeling as when I admit to ignorance on a certain topic and someone stares at me and replies, "you didn't know that?" albeit, to a lesser extent.
Tresopax, Very probably offense wasn't intended. But they should understand that some people will view that kind of text as offensive, or in my case, just annoying. And twinky told them so, if rather snarkily, which I can't really blame them for. It's not like he was callous about it.
Text of that flavor can be annoying or offensive precisely because some people actually do use it in a condescending way or even threatening way. It's even happened to me within the context of higher education, though more rarely, so I wouldn't say Twinky was wholly out of line.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Have you not heard?" is the only cause that is listed. That suggests to me that it's the most likely cause.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Expression A expresses surprise that the person did not know that you should stop at red lights.
Expression B following statement A implies that the most likely reason that the person did not know A, is because they had not heard A.
Statement C solves the ignorance of A and B in a self evident manner.
Edit: Replace "stop at red lights" with "God exists" or "God is a homosexual" or something else which is completely NOT self evident, and it can be offensive.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I probably wouldn't have been terribly offended by the posters (annoyed, but not offended), I really like Twinky's prank.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, could you describe this tone a little more fully? Is there negativity associated with it?
Not really, any more than parody/satire usually generates.
Okay. Thanks for elaborating.
This was more than two years ago now. I'm starting to get a little nostalgic for those days, what with all this talk of when I was in fourth year.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of context, I think the most likely interpretation of the verse is exactly the one that Twinky came up with. Which is why I would not choose that particular verse to use on outreach-type publicity.
In context, the verse has the exact same connotations, except that it's directly aimed at people who have heard and do (supposedly) know. The chiding tone is definiately there, but it's directed at insiders who aren't acting in accordance with what they claim to believe. Our non-religious friends are not reading anything into it that isn't already there -- it just isn't aimed at them.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Although I probably wouldn't have been terribly offended by the posters (annoyed, but not offended), I really like Twinky's prank.
Like I said, that's exactly how I felt -- irritated. Posting my parody around the engineering buildings (about a dozen copies) definitely helped assauge my irritation, so you could say that my motivation was partly selfish. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the impetus behind the parody. The flyers probably wouldn't have prompted me to do anything, but every time I saw one I'd mentally reply something like "yeah, been there, done that."
But I do understand the feeling. Every work day I drive by a church on a hill that has "JESUS" written across its roof in lights. I want to put "SATAN" on the roof of the building across the street if for no other reason than to provide some yang for that yin. What bothers me about that one, though, is the inanity of it. Are they advertising that this is a "Jesus" church instead of, say, a "Bob" church? Are they marking the church so Jesus will notice it when he comes again? I think I'd be less irritated if it at least expressed a complete thought, like "JESUS SAVES" or something.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. Every time I drive to Ohio I pass (among other things) a big barn that has "JESUS" on one side of the roof and what I can only assume is the family's last name on the other side. I'm not quite sure what to make of it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This past Christmas, both my kids were in the local Church's Cristmas play. My daughter danced the part of Mary. My son helped with the tech.
I'm agressively atheist, as is my son (one of his best friends is devoutly Christian--no, really!). My daughter is agnostic; my wife is lapsed Catholic (though she did take communion that one time last year at the Cristmas Mass).
We were fine. My friends, who lead the lay-mass (and who are pretty much the music directors for this church) know our religious beliefs; they were fine about it, too.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I'm confused. Going into a church would be idolatry but going into a mosque wouldn't be?
We have more stringent rules for idolatry than those which apply to others. The whole trinity thing in Christianity is in opposition to the Jewish belief in absolute monotheism. That makes it idolatry for us.
Islam is purely monotheistic.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of the supposed 'offendedness' on this thread seems a little over the top to me.
If I saw a billboard for Burger King that said "Haven't you heard? The Whopper is the best-tasting burger in town!", I would have little reason to take offense, even if I think Wendy's makes a superior product.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I'm also curious if the restriction would extend to, say, the ruins of a temple of Zeus, or an Aztec pyramid.
There's also an issue of what we call mar'it ayin, or giving the wrong impression. For example, I could make a soyburger and melt cheese on top of it, and that's completely permissible. A fake cheeseburger. But it's forbidden for me to sit outside and eat that fake cheeseburger, because it would give the impression to those who didn't realize it was a soyburger that I was eating a cheeseburger, and since I'm known to be an Orthodox Jew, that would be a Bad Thing.
When foods that were essentially kosher versions of non-kosher foods (like Baco's or that fake shrimp and crab that's made from Alaskan pollock) first came out, there was actually a ruling that you couldn't serve it without the packaging being in plain sight. Nowadays, it's so ubiquitous that this isn't necessary.
If I go into a church, it's too hard for people to make the distinction. It could appear that I'm worshipping there. It's probably less likely if I'm walking through ruins.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: But how do they know where to draw the line? If someone were to come into my house, there might be some rosaries and a crucifix or two around the living room. Maybe. Go to an interfaith area and there might be Jewish symbols and Christian symbols there(actually I have no idea if that could happen) or maybe the room is used for Christian prayer 12 hours a week and the rest of the time it is merely an empty room. And what's the difference between a foyer and the back of a church, other than a foot of space?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't churches consecrated? That's a difference.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Some of the supposed 'offendedness' on this thread seems a little over the top to me.
If I saw a billboard for Burger King that said "Haven't you heard? The Whopper is the best-tasting burger in town!", I would have little reason to take offense, even if I think Wendy's makes a superior product.
As I've said, I wasn't offended, so I assume that part isn't addressed at me. However, advertising a Whopper is quite different from advertising a religion -- in the latter case, the advertiser purports to have the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything, so to speak. In the former case, they're just saying their hamburger is the best one. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In context, the verse has the exact same connotations, except that it's directly aimed at people who have heard and do (supposedly) know. The chiding tone is definiately there, but it's directed at insiders who aren't acting in accordance with what they claim to believe. Our non-religious friends are not reading anything into it that isn't already there -- it just isn't aimed at them.
I was really glad that someone pointed this out (that wasn't me, because I would gotten my head bitten off). It was bugging me and I was itching to post it, but I didn't think it would help coming from me.
---
While I may be "anti-religious" in that I think that many religious institutions have many damaging effects on society, I think my complaints deal more with the temporal societies than with the spiritual things (although to be fair, I do regard some interpretations of religion, at their root, to be evil). I am generally supportive of genuine, committed religion and believe in the validity of most people's religions.
As such, I have no trouble attending and even participating in religious stuff, with the caveat that I didn't feel that the religion was evil.
As to whether I'd buy from a overtly religious business, I would, but I'd be more wary of them than I would one lacking that quality. The overt religion thing, while quite likely harmless, suggests to me that something might be a little off. Although that'd be a function of the religion and the approach to it displayed and not so much a hard and fast rule.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Some of the supposed 'offendedness' on this thread seems a little over the top to me.
If I saw a billboard for Burger King that said "Haven't you heard? The Whopper is the best-tasting burger in town!", I would have little reason to take offense, even if I think Wendy's makes a superior product.
Cultural context, the dynamics of power, and historical artifact.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would go into a church. I would pretend to pray. I would not take communion, though, out of respect to the beliefs of the church I was visiting.
I don't have a god to offend. What does it matter if I pretend to take part in someone elses faith? It's just being polite. And most things they pray for are things I would pray for too if I believed. It's not like I disagree with the sentiment.
I've gone to Seders with my husband. We lite the menorah (when I remind him!) around channukah. I fast with him over Yom Kippur. I do these things, not because I'm jewish, (I'm not) but because I want to show my support for him and his faith.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: [qb] I'm also curious if the restriction would extend to, say, the ruins of a temple of Zeus, or an Aztec pyramid.
There's also an issue of what we call mar'it ayin, or giving the wrong impression. For example, I could make a soyburger and melt cheese on top of it, and that's completely permissible. A fake cheeseburger. But it's forbidden for me to sit outside and eat that fake cheeseburger, because it would give the impression to those who didn't realize it was a soyburger that I was eating a cheeseburger, and since I'm known to be an Orthodox Jew, that would be a Bad Thing.
Ah, okay, that makes sense. So it the purpose (or a purpose) of mar'it ayin to demonstrate otherness to the larger non-Jewish societies that Jews have typically found themselves surrounded by over the centuries, or is it an inward focused thing intended to demonstrate solidarity to other group members? Or if the purpose is something else entirely, what is it?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Some of the supposed 'offendedness' on this thread seems a little over the top to me.
If I saw a billboard for Burger King that said "Haven't you heard? The Whopper is the best-tasting burger in town!", I would have little reason to take offense, even if I think Wendy's makes a superior product.
I wouldn't take offense, but I'd roll my eyes at their smug sounding advertising campaign. Before I read this post I was actually going to post something saying that I would be just as irritated by that slogan if it were used to sell some commercial product rather than a religion.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH: I don't believe they would be praying for things I would be pray for if I believed in god. I don't like their treatment of women. And there's the whole Terror connection.
posted
Thanks for explaining Lisa. My mother used to use the phrase all the time, "Avoid the appearance of evil." (Evil being relative in this case...)
What if a Christian friend's home is dedicated to God? Would it be forbidden for you to enter there? Is there something inherently wrong in being in a place where people are dedicated to living contrary to your beliefs, even if you maintain your own beliefs while you're there - or is it more the aspect of not wanting to be mistaken for a Christian? You certainly couldn't be accused of idolatry just by being in a room of idolaters (by God anyway - of course men could accuse you).
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have more stringent rules for idolatry than those which apply to others. The whole trinity thing in Christianity is in opposition to the Jewish belief in absolute monotheism. That makes it idolatry for us.
Ahh, I see the distinction now. Thanks.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not anti or non-religious- actually a devout LDS. When my brother in law married a wiccan, they had a wiccan service, which I attended and enjoyed. Afterwards, I went up and told the priestess that I enjoyed the service in the line thingy. I also attend other Protestant services throughout the year (other family) and stand when they stand. I don't repeat words that I don't believe though (ie Nicean Creed). I also have when invited attended Budhist and Jewish services. So, despite the fact that I don't believe in those religions, I will go out of support and also curiousity. However, if the sermon took a hateful tone, I would leave, despite attempts to show respect for my relatives. I can't condone hatred by sitting still. Of course, I would also and have left my own services when a speaker got out of line (problem with allowing anyone to talk sometimes they say stupid things).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't churches consecrated? That's a difference.
Catholic churches definitely are. At least some Protestant churches aren't, but I'm not sure which ones.
Many congregations meet for regular worship services in school assembly halls and such.
Well, I wouldn't have any problem going into a school assembly hall just because it's also used for such services at other times.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: [qb] I'm also curious if the restriction would extend to, say, the ruins of a temple of Zeus, or an Aztec pyramid.
There's also an issue of what we call mar'it ayin, or giving the wrong impression. For example, I could make a soyburger and melt cheese on top of it, and that's completely permissible. A fake cheeseburger. But it's forbidden for me to sit outside and eat that fake cheeseburger, because it would give the impression to those who didn't realize it was a soyburger that I was eating a cheeseburger, and since I'm known to be an Orthodox Jew, that would be a Bad Thing.
Ah, okay, that makes sense. So it the purpose (or a purpose) of mar'it ayin to demonstrate otherness to the larger non-Jewish societies that Jews have typically found themselves surrounded by over the centuries, or is it an inward focused thing intended to demonstrate solidarity to other group members? Or if the purpose is something else entirely, what is it?
I suppose there could be an issue with non-Jews getting the wrong idea, but that's not the primary one. If a Jew who doesn't know better sees me apparently eating a cheeseburger, he might conclude that he's allowed to eat a cheeseburger. This would be a "stumbling block before the blind".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest, you don't have to pretend to pray to be polite. If you just sit quietly and are not disruptive, that would be even more polite.
I, too, would walk out if things got offensive. If it were in my own Church, I would also make sure people heard about my being offended.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Thanks for explaining Lisa. My mother used to use the phrase all the time, "Avoid the appearance of evil." (Evil being relative in this case...)
What if a Christian friend's home is dedicated to God?
I assume you don't just mean God, right? 'Cause I'm actually big on God.
Look, for some things, there really is a "don't ask, don't tell" thing going on. If I went to a Christian's house, I sure wouldn't ask such a thing. And if I was told it, I might have an issue where I'd have to ask a qualified rabbinic authority whether that creates a line I'm not permitted to cross.
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Would it be forbidden for you to enter there? Is there something inherently wrong in being in a place where people are dedicated to living contrary to your beliefs, even if you maintain your own beliefs while you're there - or is it more the aspect of not wanting to be mistaken for a Christian? You certainly couldn't be accused of idolatry just by being in a room of idolaters (by God anyway - of course men could accuse you).
It wouldn't be idolatry for me to be in there, but we're very careful about idolatry. We have a concept of "the dust of idolatry", which means anything even remotely associated with idolatry.
There are three categories of sin in Judaism that we're supposed to die rather than transgress, and idolatry is one of those. So we have a very wide margin of error, just to be safe.
Think about it. I'm standing among Christians, and something falls out of my pocket. Not thinking, I bend down to get it. Get it? That would be a huge desecration of God's Name (which is, actually, a fourth category that we're supposed to die rather than transgress, but it's general, so we usually just talk about the Big Three.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suppose there could be an issue with non-Jews getting the wrong idea, but that's not the primary one. If a Jew who doesn't know better sees me apparently eating a cheeseburger, he might conclude that he's allowed to eat a cheeseburger....
So Lisa, if I understand correctly, if a Jew were to see you in a Christian church, he might mistakenly get the idea that you accept Jesus as the Son of God, and therefore it's alright to be Christian. Is this where the concern about idolatry comes in? - that you might lead away your own people into thinking this is okay?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Exactly what I thought! Not pertaining to myself, but the only reason I can think of for an atheist to refuse to go into a house of worship is, as has been mentioned some here, a vendetta of sorts against organized religion. And I just see that as stupid to allow your hate of religion to take away from the pleasure of life. Heck, the grandparents in case probably don't have long to live anyways! harrumph.
posted
I don't have a problem going anywhere. I don't pray (I bow my head slightly, to respect the people who are praying) but I will sing along with hymns if I know them or can pick them up. I listen politely. I don't even heckle.
Religions aren't offensive to me, I just don't believe in them.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It seems to me that you dislike people stating beliefs in their advertising that you disagree with.
I think that the "Bible study group meets weekly at time X" certainly implies that those people have a belief that god exists and is therefore not in agreement with me. Yet T find absolutely nothing wrong with it.
So, no, I don't dislike people stating beliefs in their advertising that I disagree with so long as it is done respectfully.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Exactly what I thought! Not pertaining to myself, but the only reason I can think of for an atheist to refuse to go into a house of worship is, as has been mentioned some here, a vendetta of sorts against organized religion. And I just see that as stupid to allow your hate of religion to take away from the pleasure of life. Heck, the grandparents in case probably don't have long to live anyways! harrumph.
It'd have to be a pretty good reason to go into such a place though. I just get generally uncomfortable around that kind of thing. Nothing really bad, just a vague feeling of not belonging.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It seems to me that you dislike people stating beliefs in their advertising that you disagree with.
I think that the "Bible study group meets weekly at time X" certainly implies that those people have a belief that god exists and is therefore not in agreement with me. Yet T find absolutely nothing wrong with it.
So, no, I don't dislike people stating beliefs in their advertising that I disagree with so long as it is done respectfully.
But with "Buble study group meets weekly at time X", nothing is being said that you disagree with. Implied, yeah. but not said.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Exactly what I thought! Not pertaining to myself, but the only reason I can think of for an atheist to refuse to go into a house of worship is, as has been mentioned some here, a vendetta of sorts against organized religion. And I just see that as stupid to allow your hate of religion to take away from the pleasure of life. Heck, the grandparents in case probably don't have long to live anyways! harrumph.
This phrasing seems a bit rude to me. Just because it's the "only reason [you] can think of" doesn't mean it's the only reason possible. I can imagine an atheist not wanting to go into a church for many reason that have nothing to do with a "vendetta" of any sort. Perhaps he or she simply does not feel comfortable among those he feels are actively promoting a group self-delusion. Perhaps he or she has had many experiences of over-zealous missionary types and is loath to meet them on their own turf. I'm sure there are other reasons.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
